Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gibson v. Charleston County Detention, 07-7123 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-7123 Visitors: 38
Filed: Dec. 19, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7123 TESSA RANI GIBSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; MARK A. LEWIS; DONALD V. SALTERS; BRIAN E. BRITTON; MATTHEY R. DOWNING; DENISE BROWN; LISA A. GONZALEZ-WILLIAMS; KEITH K. FRANKLIN; ARTHUR L. GREY; FTI BARNES; FTI HENNIX; OFFICER JAMES; OFFICER GREATHOUSE; KENNETH E. SPONIC; MICHAEL TICE; WALTER WRIGHT; HENRY GATHERS; STEVEN C. DURBIN; WALLACE ALSTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal fr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7123 TESSA RANI GIBSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; MARK A. LEWIS; DONALD V. SALTERS; BRIAN E. BRITTON; MATTHEY R. DOWNING; DENISE BROWN; LISA A. GONZALEZ-WILLIAMS; KEITH K. FRANKLIN; ARTHUR L. GREY; FTI BARNES; FTI HENNIX; OFFICER JAMES; OFFICER GREATHOUSE; KENNETH E. SPONIC; MICHAEL TICE; WALTER WRIGHT; HENRY GATHERS; STEVEN C. DURBIN; WALLACE ALSTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:07-cv-01364-PMD) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 19, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tessa Rani Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tessa Rani Gibson appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider its order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gibson v. Charleston County Det. Ctr., No. 2:07-cv-01364-PMD (D.S.C. July 26, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer